throughout the United States and the World. Inthis post 9-11 era, both military and civilian must keep a tight hold on the security of theirsurroundings including civilian compounds and military installations throughout the world.Unlike in the past,

threats now occur in more areas and more frequently. This increase in threatshas caused an overall desire for increased security. There is currently no effective methodologyfor systematically selecting the best Electronic Security System (ESS) design for detecting andcommunicating an intrusion of sensitive facilities.

Many different organizations have been developing security system sensors fordecades. Eventhough sensors have been in development for an extended amount of time, and by organizationsaround the world, the sensors can be classified into established sets and subsets. Theseclassifications have not changed much over the past few decades and the methods in which thesesensors have been enhanced

also have not changed, though the methods have had very littlesignificant change.

In many cases, the placement, type, and quantity of selected sensory is set-up in an ineffective orinefficient configuration, resulting in gaps in surveillance ability and/or unnecessary costs.Sensors are typically

chosen and placed by human security experts. These experts will need tovisit all areas of the perimeter, take measurements, and perform lengthy calculations. Thesecharacteristics of perimeter security underline the need to provide a system to aid sensorplacement. A Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES) provides a means of aiding securitycompanies to determine the optimal placement and type of sensors to secure a perimeter withoutsite visits and by speeding calculation times.

The intent of the SSES is to become a new cost effective sensor suite platform with emphasis ona graphical user interface (GUI), probability of detection, and sensor specifications. Newtechnology developments in physical sensors allowvarious

techniques to fill a critical capabilitygap for today’s security industry.

The SSESdevelopmentteam has designed a system utilizing a GUI to facilitate site security.The goal of the SSES is to develop a system to assist users of ESS in the set-up of their systems(composition andlocation of sensors) to achieve a complete and reliable surveillance using themost cost effective means available. The Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES) will be able toincorporate data about a particular location, conduct sensor analysis, and develop arecommendation for the proper placement, type, and quality of the selected sensor.

The team chose several preliminary designs to create a working model of the SSES. Thepreliminary designs were chosen using sponsor input, stakeholder needs, market availability, andteam members’ expertise. Each design alternative was evaluated by looking at feasibility orutility of architectures, design and data environments, design core SSES data structures andalgorithms, design implementation for individual functions, and team skill set. The team alsoevaluated each design by viewing their potential operational performance anduser-friendly

capabilities. Throughout the designevaluation,

it was highly desirable to maintain “core”architecture in prototype and objective SSES systems. Also it is to be expected that functionimplementations will differ between prototype and objective SSES systems. The team favoredsimple implementations for proof-of-concept but provided a path to evolveandexpand

All over the world various installations are continuously facing threats. These continuous threatsdemand perimeter security. Improved and timely sensor placement to detect potential intrudersis a necessity. A new system is needed to assist users of ESS in the set-up of their systems(composition and location of sensors) to achieve a complete and reliable surveillance using themost cost effective means available.

Conducting an accurate assessment of a site which requires a multi-sensor security system is themost important step in the overall lifecycle of that system. An incorrect site assessment can

resultin the installation of too many or too few sensors, the wrong type according to the environment,and result in unnecessary or insufficient security. If any of these occur, the customer may besupporting the maintenance of unnecessary sensors, haveinadequate security, have increasedinstallation costs, and employ too many personnel to monitor an

over-secure security system orphysical security to compensate for its deficiencies.

Conducting an incorrect assessment is synonymous to performing an incorrect requirementsanalysis.

Currently an effective way to determine the proper placement, type, and quantity of theselectedsensory does not exist.

To determine sensor placement, perimeter security personnel mustactively determine sensor placement by being on-site and extensive testing must be done toensure the sensor placements will provide adequate security. A system is needed that is morecost effective and is able to achieve a complete and reliable surveillance. A system needs to bedesigned to give results for a wide variety of terrain types and site locations.

Purpose

Because intruders are difficult to detect without electronic sensors no site perimeter can beconsidered totally secure. This creates a need to identify intruders

as fast as possible thus

allowing

significant time for first responders to secure the site perimeter. The purpose of theSSES is to fill the current capability gap of the current ESS selection process. The focus of theSSES is to provide a GUI system at a relatively low cost.

Problem

Statement

There is currently no effective methodology for systematically selecting the best ElectronicSecurity System (ESS) design for detecting and communicating an intrusion of sensitivefacilities.

In many cases, the placement, type, and quantity of selected sensory is set-up in an ineffective orinefficient configuration, resulting in gaps in surveillance ability and/or unnecessarily higher

costs.

BACKGROUND

The electronic security and intrusion detection system installation services are a necessarycomponent of provided site protection at locations throughout the Untied States and around theSSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

5

world. The processes used to determine the most appropriate sensors for a site, as well as thequantity and location of the sensors is inconsistent throughout the service field.

When contracting with

the federal government, the process to assess and design an

ESS isillustrated inFigure 1.

Figure1: ESS Development Business Process.

Figure 1 illustrates the currentprocess for delivering an ESS to a customer. It consists of threemain phases: Proposal, Design, and Development.

The process starts with initial engagement with the customer to determine their security systemneeds and budget.

A preliminary survey of the customer site isconducted and used to produce apreliminary ESSdesign

that

provides the basis for a design-build proposal.

If the proposal is successful the team performs a detailed site survey and detailed ESS design,and assesses ESS cost and performance against customer requirements. ESS design may proceedthrough several iterations before converging on a successful design.

Proposal generation is a net cost, and site design is a low margin process. The major source ofprofit is actually landing the contract to procure and install the ESS.

The current ESS design process is manual and ad hoc. Significant effort is required to conductthe site surveys and perform ESS design. There are many opportunities for error and resultingdesigns are often sub-optimal. Gaps incoverage are a particular source of concern.

The objective of the SSES is to automate and support portions of the design process (highlightedin green) in order to improve the productivity and performance of the design team, and thequality of the resulting ESS designs.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

6

SCOPE

The team is acting as a product design team to develop a Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES)for future ESS utilizing various sensors for ground-based perimeter surveillance. The objective isto develop a methodology, and then afterwards develop (as time

permits) a software tool thatincorporates the methodology to determine the correct placement and type of sensors that willyield the required level of security at minimum cost. Theproduct

of this study will be a proof-of-concept/preliminary design phase.

Deliverables will include:



Documentation of the methods, algorithms, and procedures used to

perform the requiredfunctions.A prototype software application

including native source program code

tosupport site assessment and ESS design



One or moreuse-cases demonstrating application of the methodology and software forESS design. The team will evaluate several different geographical locations to test theSSES.



A proposal to obtain funding for full development of the SSES.

STRATEGY&

APPROACH

The

Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES) development team hascreated

a ProjectDevelopment Plan (PDP) to structure and plan the development of the SSES system.

The SSESPDP is based on a modified waterfall model which more closely resembles aprototype, software1, iterative development models. The model was developed to account for thepossibility of a very large scope of the project, but is very constricted by the course timeline.This time restriction will not allow us to perform the spiral development process; instead, wemust perform shortened iterative loops as we move toward project completion.

The main components of the PDP are separated into phases. These phases are Analysis,Requirements, Design, Implementation, Testing/Integration and Delivery of the finaldeliverables. The phased approach is illustrated in Figure 2.

The iterative loops that occur between each phase consist of Stakeholder validation/verificationas outputs from each phase with a recursive input occurring when the development requiresvalidation changes and or corrections to address deficiencies. Close stakeholder coordination andquick and responsive corrections are critical in this process due to the limited time available toexecute the project.

Each phase is composed of processes that contribute products that support the programdevelopment. The full description of the phases and the associated processes and products aredescribedinAppendixD.

1.1

Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)

The SSES development team selected the Department of Defense Architecture Framework

(DoDAF)

for the design and development of the SSES. The reason for the selection is due to thebelief that a primary customer

will be the U.S. Department of Defense and willbe necessary tomeet future requirements. The products associated with the DoDAF are used to develop a fulldescription of the system.

The products developed for the SSES development are based on version 1.5. These are:

-

OV-1: High-Level Operational Concept Graphic

-

OV-5: Operational Activity Model

-

OV-7: Logical Data Model.

-

SV-4: Systems Functionality Description

-

SV-5: Operational Activity to Systems Function Traceability Matrix

-

SV-8: Systems EvolutionDescription

These DoDAF products are fully described inAppendixG.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

8

STAKEHOLDERIDENTIFICATION

1.1

Stakeholder Definition

After defining a target project and problem statement, it became possible for the SSESdevelopment team to determine the possiblestakeholders. The team identified the stakeholdersby creating stakeholder categories and filling those categories with individual stakeholders basedon their benefits/interest areas, priorities, and behaviors. Once all individual stakeholders andstakeholder categories had been identified, the team interviewed various stakeholders to findtheir individual needs and wants of the SSES. The team was also able to create a stakeholdervalue worksheet to help prioritize the stakeholders and determine the business drivers.

During Phase 1 of the Project Development Plan (PDP), the SSES project team conductedresearch to determine a list of possible stakeholders of the SSES.The stakeholders were groupedinto various communities who have the same perspective/interest of the problem.

In our analysis, we determined that there are multiple perspectives and interests each stakeholdercan have.Our breakdown consists of Stakeholders that are “Internal” to the companydeveloping the SSES and those that are “External” to the company.

Within these twocategories,

another tier of stakeholder categories was created to include Customer, Government,Community, Suppliers, Competitors, Enemy, ESS/SSES Team, and Other Company.

The secondary perspective each stakeholder can possess

is associated with the SSES itself or aninterest in what the system actually produces. The system characteristics include attributes suchas ease of use, cost, liability, etc., whereas the product of the system contains attributes such asthe Electronic Security System (ESS) coverage, probability of detection and false alarm rate.

External Stakeholders are not involved in the development of the ESS, but will be involved inusing the SSES or the ESS

developed by the SSES.

External Stakeholders

includeCustomers,Government,Community,Suppliers,Competitors, and theEnemy.

Internal Stakeholders

are defined asthose who are associated with the development of the SSESand include the ESS/SSES Teamand other company. These stakeholders are identified

in figure3.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

9

Figure3:

SSES Stakeholder Identification

A full list and stakeholder definitionsarelocated inAppendixE.

Once all the stakeholders were identified, we defined SSES attributes and the Attributes of theSSES products, which are the Electronic Security System design characteristics.

Stakeholder Attributes

ESS Attributes:The ESS attributes arecharacteristics of the system the SSES will design.

-

Design Cost:

This is the cost of designing the ESS. This can consist of the labor and timerequired to apply the

SSES to develop the ESS design

-

Roll-out Cost:

The costs associated with installing and configuring the ESS

-

Sustainment Cost:

The costs associated with maintaining the ESS. This includes maintenancepersonnel, spare/replacement parts, and utility costs

-

Site Coverage:

Site coverage is the amount of the specified area is secured by the ESS

-

Probability of Detection:

The probability of detection is commonly noted as Pd. This is thelikelihood in which anintruder is detected by the ESS

-

Speed of Detection:

The speed of detection is the time between when an intruder enters the sitecovered by the ESS to when security is notified

-

False Alarm Rate:

The false alarm rate is the rateat

which security is notified when an intruderhas not entered into the secure area

-

Ease of Use:

How easy the ESS system is to use

-

Transparency of Operation:

The ability to “see” how the ESS components are functioning.

-

Reliability:

Reliability istheprobability the ESS will function as designedwithout failuresand/or outages

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

10

Figure4:

Value Mapping Process

-

Information Type/Content:

The type of data and amount provided. This can vary from singlealarms (indication of intrusion only), alarms that indicate a specific location (intrusionnotification and location), full color video (video of intrusion location), infrared video (nightvideo ofintrusion location), etc.

-

Residual Vulnerability/Risk Estimation:

The remaining riskof undetected intrusion or areas with less Pd than other areas

Ability to extend capabilities without majorrewriting of code or changes in its basic architecture

-

Secondary Market Potential:

The opportunity to use the SSESin different ways to make money

o

SSES Licensing:

The ability to contract use of the ESSSystem to other corporations to use in their ESS design

o

Assessment of Competitor Systems:

-

Marketing Value:

The ability for the SSES to achieve a competitive advantage to those who donot use it

-

Product Liability:

Whether the SSES can be responsible for security failures of the designedESS

Stakeholder Value Mapping

Stakeholder Value Mapping is an important component of defining the functional requirementsof a system. This document defines the process and terminology used in developing theStakeholder Value Map. Theresulting traceability matrix (Value Map) allows the developmentteam to trace the originof each of the system requirements. This is very important in order tounderstand the origins and repercussions of any changes in system requirements or even anychanges in stakeholder requirements.

The approach taken in developing the Stakeholder Value Map is represented in Figure4.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

11

The process begins with the stakeholder identification.Stakeholder identification requires anunderstanding of the problem and the impact on personnel in its environment.Based on theproblem statement, additional research is required to gain this understanding.

Stakeholder identification is then followed by identifying attributes of the system proposed toaddress the problem. It is then very important to identify the stakeholder needs and wants.Thegoal is to identifythe stakeholder “Wants” which are essentially the customer requirements.These requirements are then correlated with functional characteristics of the system.This isachieved through the Quality Function Deployment/House of Quality (HOQ) method.Theresults of the HOQ results are then used to develop the functional requirements.

Throughout this process it is important to develop a traceability document. In this project, wehave developed a traceability matrix that shows the relationship from thestakeholder to thedefined requirement.The importance of this occurs when requirements are added, changed orremoved. When this occurs, the traceability matrix will allow the team to

identify the impactacross the entire project, and the effect on the stakeholder requirements.

The detailed value mapping can be found in AppendixE.

CONCEPT OFOPERATIONS

1.1

Operational Concept

Figure5: SSES High Level Operational Diagram (OV-1)

The intent of the system (moving clockwisefrom the upper left corner) is to process imagery of asite. This can come from satellite data, 3-D rendering, architectural drawings, etc. The systemwill also process weather data since

the environmental conditions impact the performance of thesensors.The sensor specifications and performance data is also processed. This data can includeSSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

12

Pd and FAR data, power requirements, networking requirements, and sensor operational databecause the type of sensor determines the impact of the environmental conditions. Threat data isalso processed, in that the security of a site is dependent on the types of threats the site isprotecting against. Physical barriers and obstructions are also processed because these impact the“Deterrence” component of site protection.

The system should be able to access data from theinternet. This can include weather, threat, and environmental data. The system should also beable to access/be accessed by specific databases well. This can include private/secure networksand customer databases.

Use Case Analysis

The SSES use cases were developed to explore the operational activities necessary to address theproblem and meet requirements. The SSES team analyzed the preliminary requirements and usedthe use cases to flush additional

requirements and identify additional stakeholders and theirvalues.

The SSES team first determined the actors that are necessary to perform the activities describedin the requirements, and then determined the activities each actor would do and how theyrelateto the system.

The actors that were defined as interacting with the system are:



ESS Designer/Assessor



Developer (SSES Developer)



Admin (DB Developer/Maintainer)



Supplier

It was also determined that databases will be necessary to perform as part ofthe system. Thesedatabases are defined as:



Environmental Characteristics



Threat Characteristics/Classifications



Sensor Performance Specifications

The physical and functional decompositions are explored in the subsequent sections of the report.

These use

cases are not entirely complete as use cases can be developed for every function of thesystem. The uses cases presented here represent the primary requirements.

Use

Case 1:

Obtain Recommended Sensor Suite

Actors: ESS Designer, SSES Admin

Use Case2:

Evaluate Existing Sensor System

Actors: ESS Designer

Use Case3:

Determine Sensor Suite Total Cost Estimate

Actor(s): ESS Designer

Use Case4:

Maintain SSES Database

Actors: SSES Developer, SSES Admin, Supplier

The full Use Case Analysis can be found inAppendix F.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

13

OPERATIONALANALYSIS

Figure6: SSES p-diagram.

The p-diagram illustrates the inputs, outputs, controllables and uncontrollables of the SSES. Thegoals of the SSES are represented as outputs while taking into accountthe inputs, controllablesand uncontrollables.

IDEF-0 Modeling was selected for this project to develop the OV-5 diagrams. The SSESdevelopment team developed the models to the third level in order to achieve a sufficient detailto enable the developmentof a detailed functional composition.

Figure7: SSES External Systems Diagram.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

14

The External systems diagram shows how the SSES operates within the environment ofperforming ESS design. The SSES is highlighted in yellow, with theoutputs being a SecurityRating, A complete ESS systems design, and the total operational cost estimate.

Figure8: SSES A0 IDEF0 Diagram

The functions of the SSES are shown as Characterize/Model ESS Site, Model ESS Threat Set,Design ESS, and Assess ESS Performance.

The SSES OV-5 IDEF-0 diagrams were developed to the third level which allowed sufficientdetail to begin development of the system functional architecture. A full decomposition can befound in AppendixG.

SYSTEMARCHITECTURE

1.1

Functional Decomposition

The SSES Functional Decomposition is a 5 level breakdown of the primary functions the systemshall perform. These functions are derived from a stakeholder’s needs assessment as well as thestakeholder’s value mapping.

The intent of the Functional Decomposition is to identify each component of the overall SSES.The Functional Decomposition allows each component of the SSES to be mapped to a physicalfunction. This allows each function to be tied to an owner and their role in the overall system tobe seen. The Functional Decomposition will also be used to ensure all necessary functions havebeen mapped and no unnecessary functions have been requested.

For the decomposition, the basic system level functions were determined along with theirfunctions. The functions were selected based on the stakeholder wants and needs, scope of theproject, and team discussion. The Stakeholder Wants and Needs can be found in AppendixE.

The primary functionality of interest is the ability to place sensors on a topological representationof the terrain and have the system determine feasibility of the sensor placement. The top levelSSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

15

functional solution is the SSES. Therefore the design and assessment of the ESS is treated at thetop level in our Functional Decomposition. Figure9

below is a pictorial representation of theSSES Functional Decomposition.

Figure9: SSES Functional Decomposition.

System Requirements Document

The overarching objective of the program is to support the design and fielding of electronicsecurity systems (ESS) which meet the needs of external customers. The specific performancerequirements for an ESS vary depending on the customer objectives, application, and site to besecured. However, the fundamental goal of all ESS designs is to provide site security byproviding electronic surveillance coverage of all or an acceptable portion of the site, with a highprobability of successfully detecting anintruder (Pd) and low false alarm rate (FAR). This isaccomplished by selecting a suite of sensors with detection capabilities that are appropriate forthe characteristics of the specific site and expected threat, emplacing them in appropriatelocations and in sufficient numbers, and integrating their outputs to provide the requiredcoverage with acceptably high Pd and low FAR while remaining within the design / buildbudget.

ESS design is currently a manual process that relies primarily on the subject matter expertise ofthe site inspectors and ESS design team. This process is labor intensive and subject to errors andinefficiencies. To strengthen our competitive position, a Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES)is needed to support the ESS design team

by providing methodologies and tools to:

-

Improve the accuracy and efficiency of assessing and representing site characteristics

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

16

-

Increase the productivity of the ESS design process and the quality and performance ofESS designs

-

Improve the accuracy of ESScost estimates.

The direct “customers” of the SSES will be the ESS design team including site assessors, sensorsuite designers, and cost estimators. The indirect customers of the SSES will be the purchasersand operators of our ESS systems, who will benefit from improved ESS performance anddecreased cost.

The detailed functional requirements can be found in AppendixH.

Conceptual System Architecture

The SSES was designed by customizing available COTS hardware. This design was derivedfrom multiple Analysis of Alternative, cost analysis, and requirement analysis iterations. Thefinal SSES product was created using a GUI interface in Matlab with a data environment that isprimarily model driven with supporting database components. The GUI designenvironment waschosen as the most suitable design environment for the following reasons:

-

Best able to support to meet stakeholder wants and functional requirements

-

Viable approach identified for all major functions

-

Best fit for model driven data environment

-

Most usable by ESS design team without additional training

-

Best potential to produce “eye catching” prototype / gain support for follow-ondevelopment

-

Best match for SSES team skill set

The data environment was chosen as the most suitable data environment for the followingreasons:

•

Primarily model driven, with supporting database components:

Rationale:

–

Model / simulation provides most flexible and extensible design

o

Viable modeling approach identified for all major functions

o

Able to implement simple

models for prototype and replace with higherfidelity models as follow on effort

o

Use “simple” data components for threat, environment, terrain types,sensor performance for some sensors

–

Allows use of existing modeling and analysis tools:

o

Network analysis

o

Queuing theory

o

Sensor / detection models / theory

o

Sensor fusion

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

17

–

Provides ability to generate first-order results from first principles

o

Major obstacle for data driven design is getting / generating the requireddata and populating databases

–

Best match for SSES team skill set

The full Conceptual System Architecture can be found in Appendix J.

The full SSES Manual can be found in Appendix L.

Figure10: Core SSES Solution Space

BUSINESSCASE

1.1

Business Need

In today’s world, government, military, commercial, and privately owned facilities requiresecurity. This security often comes in the form ofan intrusion detection system (or SensorSuite).The system can provide early warning of impending intrusion orattack, which gives anopportunity for a security team to respond appropriately. In many cases, the intrusion detectionsystem is set-up in an ineffective or inefficient configuration, resulting in gaps in surveillanceability and/or unnecessary costs. The Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES) solves thisproblem by incorporating data about a particular location, fusing this data with sensorspecifications, and calculating a solution for the proper placement, type, and quality of theselected sensors. Our team brings a wide variety of experience from the private sector,government contracting companies, government civil service, and the military.The detectionintrusion industry is likely to grow over the next several decades because of the ever-increasingthreat of attack against “soft” facilities, particularly facilities of a sensitive nature. Governmentalagencies and private businesses will look to increase security of these facilities whileSSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

18

maintaining, or even reducing, overhead costs. These agencies and businesses will form the coreof our customer base. The SSES is positioned to pioneer the development of intrusion detectionevaluation software based on our unique quantitative approach, which removes guesswork andintuition and replaces it withdata and expertise.

Mission Statement: The Sensor Suite Evaluation System (SSES) assists government, military,commercial, and privately owned facilities in the set-up of their intrusion detection systems(composition and location of sensors) to achieve a complete and reliable surveillance using themost cost effective means available.

Marketing Introduction Strategy

The marketing introduction strategy will occur in 3 phases. Our first targeted customers for thisproduct are military base camps, small military installations worldwide, and small governmentfacilities. Future markets will focus on sensitive utility sites such as water treatment facilities,electricity relay stations, nuclear reactors, airports, seaports, and other critical infrastructure asidentified by Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement agencies. Completemarket penetration will include private and commercial customers. Our team will advertise theSSES, which will include an initial site survey, a renewable license to operate the SSESsoftware, access to all future software updates, and initial training to allow customers to operatethe SSES independently. The intent is to provide our customers witha new industry standard foruser-friendly intrusion detection evaluation software, supported with unparalleled customerservice.This specialized market segment offers a low-risk opportunity for the SSES to beintroduced while continuing to be refined for wider market expansion. As our governmentalcustomers gain an appreciation for a more efficient security system, and its associated loweroverhead costs, we will begin to lobby Congress for an increased presence throughout allgovernmental agencies. The SSES team will develop advertisements, put them in industrymagazines and publications, and participate in DOD/DHS conferences in order to highlightSSES capabilities. The team will make direct contacts to sales prospects in order to explain anddemonstrate the system, attract attention, spread word-of-mouth, and obtain customer feedbackto better target the sales opportunity and overall market penetration strategy. Sales proposalrequests will be solicited from the prospects.

Currently, there appears to be no other entity that can offer a system to compete with the SSESdirectly. Our closest competition is the status quo system of a security expert designing thesystem manually. The quantitative approach taken by SSES will yield better-quality results.Aggressive system refinement and improvement willassure that our system remainstechnologically superior.

The strategy of offering the SSES as part of a package that includes a software license, an initialsite survey, and software computer training is the result of several considerations. First, theintensive customer-service oriented approach will build an early reputation that will translate tohigher growth rates in future years. Second, given the unique nature of the program, it would notbe difficult for a novice used to misuse the program, whichcould result in less than optimalresults and would unnecessarily harm the reputation of the SSES. Finally, by limiting the licenseto a relatively small number of users, we increase the chances for larger agencies to give the

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

19

SSES repeat business. The option of selling an unlimited license at higher cost, but with onlylimited customer support was considered, but rejected as being too high risk. An early failurewould devastate future growth, which is key to future net cash flows.

Features & Benefits

The following are the most important features and benefits of theSSES:

Site Assessment Productivity and Accuracy.

The SSES begins with an exhaustive terrainmapping of the site to be secured, along with the immediate vicinity. The terrain data is enteredinto the SSES topographically using DTED data. Different terrain types, ranging from forest andfields to roads and buildings, are modeled into the terrain data as well, each with its ownparameters of movement rates, visibility, and cover and concealment. Once this data iscomplete, the site exists in the SSES as a digital model in which sensors can be placed andevaluated. The model can also be updated should surrounding terrain be physically altered.

Complete catalog of existing sensors.

The SSES team has gathered a wide array of existingsensors and their specifications and prices and has catalogued them into a single database. TheSSES will examine the different sensors types when evaluating different array possibilities.

Optimal placement of

sensors.

The SSES software will analyze the site assessment results anduse the database of sensors to create an array of sensors that provides the required level ofsecurity, as expressed in probability of detection, at a minimum cost.

Reduction of recurring costs to customer.

Because the customer will purchase the minimumamount of sensors to achieve the desired probability of detection, and thus adequate security,customers will be able to reduce roving patrols and sentries, relying on the detection

systeminstead.

Competitive Analysis

There is simply no existing computer software package that can assist customers seeking toinstall or improve an intrusion detection system. Current practices involve the use of a securityexpert to make a site visit and make recommendations based on a heuristic approach. Acompetitive analysis comparing the SSES with the traditional method is provided below.

Factor

SSES

Strength

Weakness

Status Quo

Importance toCustomer

Ease of Use

SSES will allow a personwith rudimentaryknowledge to design asecurity system.

Our initial R&D costs will be approximately $525,000 with a maximum exposure ofapproximately $600,500. It will take about one year to complete the development activities ofSSES. TheSSES

team’s objective is initially to sellsystems for $35,000. This kit will be aimedtowardsmilitary and government installations.During Phase 2, we willgrow our business to alarger customer base, including sensitive sites as designated by DHS. During Phase 3, we willopen our sales efforts to commercial and industrial interests. Associated costs with sales will betravel to specific sites as part of an initial site survey.We anticipate that during phase 1, the first3 years, we will have50% growth.

We expect to sell at least fivesystems

the first year, whichwill allow our initial product sales to be $175,000.During Phase 2 and 3, we expect 80% and100% growth respectively, as shown in Table 3.After about 10 years, we hope to establishlarger orders.Funds are allocated for additional R&D throughout all phases to retain acompetitive advantage over other companies who may be late in arriving to the intruder detectionanalysis field.

Inputs / assumptions

Initial Demand

5

Initial license sales*

175000

*includes training fee

0

*includes consulting fee

0

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

License sales growth

50%

80%

100%

Wages / salaries

200000

300000

400000

Marketing costs

80000

100000

150000

Payment processing fee

4.5%

Discount rate

10.0%

Table

13:

Ten Year Cash Flow Baseline

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

22

Figure 11

shows the influence diagram that was generated using DPL. This deterministic modelshows the main factors that affect the Net Present Value (NPV). The NPV expected value wascalculated by DPL to be $27,381,512. This NPV expected value is based on a 10-year period.

Figure11:

Influence Diagram

The Business Case in

Figure12

below details our expected profit and loss over the next 10 years.After 10 years, we expect to sell2319

systems

resulting in total revenue of $74,002,600. In year3, we beginto see a positive profit.

Figure12:

Profit and Loss Analysis

Figure 13

shows the values for our baseline cashflow chart. We expect to achieve the breakevenpoint between year 4 and 5.

Baseline Cashflow Chart

Figure13:

Baseline Cashflow Chart

Positive Profit Point

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

23

Thechart

in Figure 14

illustrates our yearly net cash, cumulative cash flow, and baseline NPVfor each year within the 10 year period.

Figure14:

Cumulative Net Cash Flow

Wechanged the deterministic model to a probabilistic model and created discrete chance nodesfor values of which the team was uncertain. The figure below shows the decision tree created byDPL with three chance nodes. DPL then calculates the expected value of the NPV using thesediscrete probability mass functions.

Figure

15:

Cash Flow model with 4 Discrete Change nodes

Depending on the initiallicense

sales

and the growth of future license

sales duringall threephases

of our project,theNPVhas a large range of possible values. In Figure 15, DPL hascreated three probabilistic outcomes for Low, Nominal, and High. We assigned probabilities of.3, .4, and .3 for the three chance outcomes.The tree is truncated to two levels for simplicity’ssake, but the values shown reflect the calculations

using all four discrete change nodes.The farleft node displays the expected value of the product sales phase 1 growth: $33,127,918. Theworst-case scenario isthat both initial license sales and subsequent growth are low. In this case,theNPV willbe

$

-1,175,025. The best-case scenario isthat both initial license sales andsubsequent growth are high. In this case,NPV will be $182,308,868.These two extremes arevery unlikely–

in all probability, the NPV will be closer to its calculated expected value.

A value tornado was created to help identify which variables in the cash flow baseline have thebiggest impact on our objective function.The following tableshows

the low, nominal,

and highsettings for each of the value nodes that are constant in our current model.

LOW

NOMINAL

HIGH

INITIAL SALES

1

5

10

PHASE 1 GROWTH

25%

50%

60%

PHASE 2 GROWTH

50%

80%

100%

PHASE 3 GROWTH

75%

100%

150%

Table 4: Ranges of Discrete Chance Nodes

The x-axis of the valuetornado diagram (Figure19) displays the change in the objective functionof the model. Each of the variables on the left is changed from the low setting to the high setting.

Figure19:

Sensitivity Analysis

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

26

This sensitivityanalysis shows that the one variable that impacts future NPV is initial sales. Wewill therefore focus on an aggressive initial marketing campaign that results in maximizinginitial sales in year one.

FUTURERESEARCHEXTENSIONS

During the course of this project, it was not possible for the SSES development team to fullydevelop all aspects of the SSES. Instead,further development of the SSES

will be left to futureresearch, to include automation of tasks, optimization and automation of sensor placement,expansion of the prototype to include numerous terrain types,and include a wide array of sensortypes.

Optimization of sensor placement is a universal problem when designing an ESS. By optimizingthe sensor placement,operators will not need to manually place sensors within the SSES to findthe best ESS to protect the perimeter. This will not only lead toward a more efficient SSES butwill also lead toward automation of the SSES.

Automation of tasksshould be a primary focus for future research. Automation would allowboth experienced andinexperienced

operatorstosuccessfully use the SSES.Automation wouldalso reduce the time required to create a secure perimeter using the SSES. By removing manualtasks, the computer vice the operator will make

many of the necessary

decisions thus reducingthe time an operator must use the SSES.

CONCLUSIONS&

RECOMMENDATIONS

In review of the SSES development project to date, the team has come to several key conclusionsand recommendations for the SSES.

Overall the SSES development project was a success. The SSES team feels that this project hasa place in the current ESS market. The limited time in the fifteen week semester did not allowthe team to fully develop all aspects of the SSES, however, we believe

with the adequateresources the SSES can be reevaluated and developed in greater detail.

One of the greatest challenges to the SSES development project is the automation of tasks withinthe SSES. The desire for automation was a driving force of the SSES development. During thecourse of this project, the team discovered that time constraints would limit the automation oftasks and require the operator to perform the remaining tasks. The SSES, however, was veryproductive at determining the probability

of detection and effectiveness of the desired sensorplacement.

The SSES also proved to be a very useful system for ESS personnel as indicated in the businessplan. The team would suggest with confidence to the “Board of Directors” that the SSES is aworthwhile product to pursue with the ability to become more robust and all inclusive.

Future projects and development on the SSES could also be done on optimization of sensorplacement and automation. Optimization of sensor placement is an ESS universal

problem.Future focus should include efforts to develop the proper algorithms to determine the optimalSSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

27

placement of sensors given site terrain. The company chosen to perform this developmentshould have substantial experience in sensor placement and detection algorithm development.

The SSES development team learned a substantial amount of information over the course of thisproject. The team rapidly developed the experience necessary to move rapidly through all theinitial concept and design stages of

a large project. The team was able to work from a projectproposal through processes, business strategies, and development of a SSES prototype.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

28

APPENDIXA:

SSES

DEVELOPMENTTEAMROLE&

TERMS OFREFERENCE

Role:

The team is acting as a product development

team for a Sensor Suite Evaluation System(SSES) that will improve of the design of electronic security systems (ESS) used to detectintrusion into a defended site.

Terms of Reference:

ESS:

Set of exterior sensors of various types selected and positioned to detect intrusion into aspecific site–

what we are trying to design and sell to the customer

SSES:Software based design and assessment tool that supports and enhances the ESS designprocess by facilitating site characterization and the selection,placement, and evaluation of sensorsuites–

what we are trying to build to improve our ESS designs and license to other ESSdesigners

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

29

APPENDIXB:

PROJECTSCHEDULE&

PERT

Over the course of this project the SSES team developed a Gantt chart, as seen below, to trackand assess project tasks as identified in a Work Breakdown Structure. A Program Evaluationand Review Technique (PERT, not shown) chart has also been developedand a critical pathidentified. Project milestones and deliverables are shown in the schedule.

Figure14: Project Schedule.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

30

APPENDIXC:

WEBSITE

http://mason.gmu.edu/~jshaw3/sses_home.htm

The team website was used as a working folder for the team as well as a graphical presentationtool. The website contains many of the SSES deliverables as well as products.

The SSES project development Plan is based on a modified waterfall model which more closelyresembles a prototype, software2, iterative development models. The model was developed toaccount for the possibility of a very large scope of the project, but is very constricted by thecourse timeline. This time restriction will not allow us to perform the spiral developmentprocess; instead, we must perform shortened iterative loops as we move toward projectcompletion.

The main components of the PDP are separated into phases. These phases are Analysis,Requirements, Design, Implementation, Testing/Integration and delivery of the finaldeliverables. The phased approach is illustrated in Figure 1.

The iterative loops that occur between each phase consist of Stakeholder validation/verificationas outputs from each phase with a recursive input occurring when the development requiresvalidation changes and or corrections to address deficiencies. Close stakeholder coordination andquick and responsive corrections are critical in this process due to the limited time available toexecute the project.

Each phase is composed of processes thatcontribute products that support the programdevelopment. The full description of the phases and the associated processes and products aredescribed below.

Phase 1: Analysis

The analysis phase encompasses the research and definition association with the problem,establishment of project goals and milestones, resource allocation and stakeholder identification.The purpose of this phase is to clearly define the problem space, taking into account all relevantparties, and structure the project for success.



Develop Problem Statement: The problem statement is a succinct statement that identifiesthe main issue which the project will attempt to address.



ID/Communicate with Stakeholders: At this stage, it is very important to identify thosewho have a relationship

with the problem and the project.



Identify Needs/Wants: Identifying the difference between the stakeholder needs andwants helps identify the critical aspects of the system that addresses the problem.



Conduct Technical Studies: Technical studies includeresearch of the system underconsideration, the problem space and the relevant stakeholders.



Determine Scope: Scoping the project is required to meet the time constraints.



Establish Schedule and Milestones: The schedule and milestones will establish the mainachievements and due dates through out the project. This is necessary for progresstracking and priority management.

Phase 2: Requirements

The requirements phase incorporates the information developed form the Analysis phase anddevelops the requirements based on the stakeholder input.



Develop Functional Decomposition: The functional decomposition is based on thestakeholder values and the defined problem space. It is a breakdown of what is necessaryto solve the problem.



Develop Requirements Documents: The requirements documents document what thesystem is supposed to do in order to solve the problem.



Identify Alternatives: This is an initial review of alternative approaches of the solutionset.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

33

Phase 3: Design

The design phase is where the development of the solution takes shape. This further develops therequirements and adds form and function to the system intended to solve the problem.



Develop Form/Function: Using the functional decomposition approaches are developedfor achieving each of the functions.



Develop Form Function Alternatives: Further development of the form/functions andresearch of alternative solutions.



Comparative Analysis: The comparative analysis requires a defined methodology for theanalysis and selection of the preferred form/functions.



Develop Preferred Alternative: After the form/function is selected, the form needs to bedeveloped. This is perhaps the most intensive component of the design phase.



Develop Intent Specification: The intent specification is a tool for developing the systemspecifications. It covers both the “why” and “how” of the system design.3



Develop Testing and Evaluation Strategy: The testing and evaluation strategy isdeveloped as the system is designed. This is necessary

Phase 4: Implementation

The implementation phase is composed of two focus areas: Business Approach / SystemApproach.



Business Approach: The business approach focuses on the system implementation withregard to the competitive market space. Implementing the system has resourceconsiderations and a thorough analysis is required to develop the business case for theimplementation of the system.

o

Develop Business Plan: The business plan focuses on the methods I which thesystem can be used to generate revenue and be a sustainable project.

o

Conduct Market Survey: The market survey is an analysis of companies ororganizations that may be interested in utilizing the system.

The testing and integration phase is where the system functions are integrated and tested inaccordance with the requirements. Test cases are developed from the use cases as part of thetesting and evaluation strategy.



Implement Testing and Evaluation Strategy: The implementation of the test andevaluation strategy is where the instantiation of the methods are tested and validatedagainst the requirements using test cases.

Phase 6:

Delivery

The delivery is the final phase of the project. In this phase, the development team provides hetechnical documentation, prototype (could be documented methods/processes), and supportingdocumentation to the most interested stakeholders (SEOR Faculty).



Develop Final Report: The final report will consist of the full documentation of allcomponents described in the Project Development Plan.



Final Presentation: The final presentation will be developed as a succinct presentation ofthe areas covered in the final report.



Develop Technical Paper: The Technical Paper will define the methods, approaches, andpossible research areas that can be further developed in solving the problem. This alsoincludes the specification and justification for selection of the determined methods.



Develop Technical Proposal: The technical proposal will be a proposal defining the nextsteps in developing the system. It may act as a means of securing funding for furtherdevelopment.



Proof of Concept Prototype: The Proof of concept is a demonstrable execution of theapproaches used to solve the problem.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

35

APPENDIXE:

STAKEHOLDERVALUEMAPPING

1.0.

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder Value Mapping is an important component of defining the functional requirementsof a system. This document defines the process and terminology used in developing theStakeholder Value Map. The resulting traceability matrix (value Map) allows the developmentteam to trace the origin of each of the system requirements. This is very important in order tounderstand the origins and repercussions of any changes in system requirements or even anychanges in stakeholder requirements.

PROJECTOVERVIEW

There is currently no effective methodology for systematically selecting the best ElectronicSecurity System (ESS) design for detecting and communicating and intrusion of sensitivefacilities.

In many cases, the placement, type, and quantity of selected sensory is set-up in an inefficientconfiguration, resulting in gaps in surveillance ability and/or unnecessary costs.

The project team is acting as a product development design team to develop a Sensor SuiteEvaluation System (SSES) for future ESS utilizing various sensors for ground-based perimetersurveillance. The objective is to develop a methodology, and then afterwards develop (as timepermits) a software tool that incorporates the methodology to determine the correct placementand type of sensors that will yield the required level of security at minimum cost. The endproduct of this study will be a proof-of-concept/preliminary design phase

STAKEHOLDERVALUEMAPAPPROACH

The approach taken in developing the Stakeholder Value Map is represented in figure 1.

Figure16: Value Mapping Process.

The process begins with the stakeholder identification. Stakeholder identification requires anunderstanding of the problem and the impact on personnel in its environment. Based on theproblem statement, additional research is required to gain this understanding.

Stakeholder identification is then followed by identifying attributes of the system proposed toaddress the problem. It is then very important to identify the stakeholder needs and wants. Thegoal is to identify the stakeholder “Wants” which are essentially the customer requirements.These requirements are then correlated with functional characteristics of the system. This isachieved through the Quality Function Deployment/Houseof Quality (HOQ) method. Theresults of the HOQ results are then used to develop the functional requirements.

SSES

Stakeholder Value Mapping

36

Throughout this process it is important to develop a traceability document. In this project, wehave developed a traceability matrix that shows the relationship from the stakeholder to thedefined requirement. The importance of this occurs when requirements are added, changed orremoved. When this occurs, the traceability matrix will allow the team it identify the impactacross the entire project,and the effect on the stakeholder requirements.

STAKEHOLDERIDENTIFICATION

During phase 1 of the Project Development Plan (PDP), the SSES project team conductedresearch to determine a list of possible stakeholders of the SSES. The stakeholders were groupedin to various communities who have the same perspective/interest of the problem.

In our analysis, we determined that there are multiple perspectives and interests each stakeholdercan have. Our breakdown consists of Stakeholders that are “Internal” tothe company developingthe SSES and those that are “External” to the company.

The secondary perspective each stakeholder can posses is associated with the SSES itself or havean interest in what the system actually produces. The system characteristics include attributessuch as ease of use, cost, liability, etc. whereas the Product of the system contains attributes suchas the Electronic Security System (ESS) coverage, probability of detection and false alarm rate.

Stakeholder Definitions

External Stakeholders:

Stakeholders that are not involved in the development of the ESS, butwill be involved in using the SSES or the ESS developed by the SSES.

Customer:

The customers are stakeholders who will be impacted from the services of the SSES.This can either bein the form of using the SSES, or using the ESS produced by the SSES.

-

Management:

The managementconsists of two groups:

the management of the ESSsystem the SSES will design;and the management of the company who might use theSSES to design a securitysystem.

-

Site Users:

The personnel who will be using the site where the ESS is operating.

-

Security System Operators/Monitors:

The personnel who are using/operating the ESS.

-

Security Forces/First Responders:

The personnel responding to alerts created by the

ESS designed by the SSES.

-

Legal/PR:

The legal/Public relations group associated with either the facility where theESS is located, or the company that is using the SSES to design their ESS.

Government:

Government organizations that are involved in the regulation of ESSs.

-

Law Enforcement/Military:Will need to adhere to security protocols, standards, etc.established by government organizations.